Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/220.255.1.45: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:55, 12 April 2011 editTnxman307 (talk | contribs)64,361 edits query← Previous edit Revision as of 22:40, 12 April 2011 edit undoHelloAnnyong (talk | contribs)Administrators42,958 edits Comment, marking case as closedNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
{{SPIpriorcases}} {{SPIpriorcases}}


{{SPI case status}} {{SPI case status|close}}




Line 43: Line 43:
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======
I'm not sure what you would like SPI to do here. There's nothing we can tell you about the IPs that isn't public knowledge. If you would like to investigate a rangeblock, you may want to post to ANI. <font color="darkorange">]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>]</big></font></b><font color="red">]</font> 12:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure what you would like SPI to do here. There's nothing we can tell you about the IPs that isn't public knowledge. If you would like to investigate a rangeblock, you may want to post to ANI. <font color="darkorange">]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>]</big></font></b><font color="red">]</font> 12:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
*{{adminnote}} I don't think ANI needs any more noise. I've blocked 220.255.1.0/26 for three days. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
---- ----
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> <!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 22:40, 12 April 2011

220.255.1.45

220.255.1.45 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/220.255.1.45/Archive.

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.


12 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I am relisting this report, because it just goes on and on (, ). Please see the archived case for more details.

Let's review the situation:

  1. The person was asked 11 times to communicate (in edit summaries, on their talk pages, on the article talk page, in the article protection log) by 4 different people.
  2. The person was repeatedly warned to stop edit warring, reverting edits without giving any reason in the edit summarries, abusing mutiple IP addresses and pushing their edits against consensus.
  3. The person never replied to anything. The person ignored all requests. The person has never provided any explanation anywhere (edit summaries, their talk pages, the article talk page). The person just continues reverting the edits, ignoring all requests to stop.
  4. Two Misplaced Pages admins already identified their edits as disruptive editing—the admin who protected the page ("IP hopper edit warring against apparent consensus"), and the admin who closed this report (for the fear of collateral damage).

Their behavior violates the following Misplaced Pages policies:

  1. Consensus. The consensus is clear, established independently by 4 different people. The IP hopper is the only one pushing their factually incorrect edit.
  2. Edit warring. Even though it may not technically break the 3RR rule, it can be qualified as edit warring, that is uncollegial editing for an extended period of time. It has already been indentified as edit warring by a Misplaced Pages admin.
  3. Vandalism. This is not a content dispute. This is not good-faith editing—the editor is well aware of the fact that he/she is breaking the Misplaced Pages rules, as he/she has been reminded of it many times (including the last warnings on their talk pages). The person in knowingly, intentionally acting against the Misplaced Pages rules.
  4. Sock puppetry. That's why it's reported here.

An action should be taken, regardless of collateral damage. Even a short block would be OK for a start, just to send them a clear message that Misplaced Pages rules and requests for communication cannot be constantly ignored. J. M. (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'm not sure what you would like SPI to do here. There's nothing we can tell you about the IPs that isn't public knowledge. If you would like to investigate a rangeblock, you may want to post to ANI. TNXMan 12:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories: